J.C.Penney, Macy’s, Michael Jordan: Intellectual Property

April 10 (Bloomberg) -- J.C. Penney Co. may be subject to
damages if it’s selling Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc.’s
plastic partyware in violation of a court order obtained by
Macy’s Inc., a New York state judge said yesterday.

Macy’s, claiming the exclusive right to sell certain
categories of Martha Stewart-branded goods, sued J.C. Penney for
carrying some of the same merchandise. Macy’s this week sought
to renew a motion to enforce an injunction it obtained in July,
claiming that the partyware is in an exclusive category and that
stocking it at J.C. Penney stores violates the court order.

Macy’s yesterday accused J.C. Penney of selling products in
the exclusive categories on its website under the name “Martha
Stewart Celebrations,” including plastic champagne flutes, wine
glasses and pitchers, and asked New York State Supreme Court
Justice Jeffrey K. Oing in Manhattan to declare that the
products violate the injunction.

“I am not entirely sure that the defendants are taking
this as seriously as we are,” Michael A. Platt, an attorney at
Jones Day who is representing Macy’s, told the judge yesterday
before putting two plastic pitchers on the bench to show their
similarities. “They should be pulled from the shelves.”

Oing declined to hear Cincinnati-based Macy’s request to
argue for an order enforcing the injunction, saying he wants
Macy’s to finish its case first, while warning that J.C. Penney
may be subject to damages if he determines the objects fall
under his July sale ban.

The three sides returned to court Monday to resume a trial
of Macy’s lawsuits following a monthlong break during which
mediation efforts ordered by Oing were unsuccessful.

Trademark

Chinese Company Brings Countersuit Against Michael Jordan

Qiaodan Sports Co., a closely held Chinese sportswear
company, said it sued hall-of-fame basketball player Michael
Jordan for damages of $8 million after his lawsuit claiming
unauthorized use of his name.

The Fujian-based retailer’s suit was accepted by the
Quanzhou City Intermediate People’s Court in Fujian on April 2,
it said in an e-mailed statement today.

The Chinese company, which has about 6,000 shops in the
country, claimed the former National Basketball Association
player has tarnished its reputation and delayed its plan for an
initial public offering. Jordan, who won six NBA championships
with the Chicago Bulls, sued Qiaodan in February last year for
using his Chinese name and jersey number 23 without permission.

Qiaodan denied the unauthorized use of Jordan’s Chinese
name in today’s statement. Jordan’s lawsuit is proceeding at the
Shanghai People’s Intermediate Court, according to an e-mailed
statement from Brunswick Group, which is representing Jordan’s
lawyer.

Qiaodan won approval from the nation’s securities regulator
in November 2011 for an initial public offering of 112.5 million
shares.

For more trademark news, click here.

Cybersecurity

Cyber Bill Getting Privacy Controls to Win Over Obama

The House Intelligence Committee will add privacy
safeguards to a cybersecurity proposal in an effort to win
support of President Barack Obama and other lawmakers, the
panel’s top Republican and Democrat said.

Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican, and
the panel’s top Democrat, C.A. “Dutch” Ruppersberger of
Maryland, told reporters April 8 they will support at least five
amendments to the bill, which provides lawsuit immunity sought
by companies including AT&T Inc. and Boeing Co.

The changes include requiring the government to minimize
collection of information that could identify citizens in the
process of sharing cyber threat data with the private sector,
Rogers and Ruppersberger said on a phone call. The lawmakers
said they also want a provision saying companies only can use
cybersecurity data to protect their networks, not for marketing
purposes.

“The improvements that we plan to make to the bill at the
markup will address several of the administration’s concerns,”
Rogers said. “And we plan to keep talking and moving toward a
consensus that will allow us to get the bill signed into law.”

The Intelligence Committee has scheduled an April 10
closed-door meeting to vote on the amendments and the measure.
Obama threatened to veto the bill last year partly over privacy
concerns.

The White House hasn’t said whether it supports the bill
with revisions, Ruppersberger said.

Other changes include denying firms legal protections if
they use cyber threat information to hack each other; dropping
language allowing agencies to use information for national
security purposes; and creating roles for the government’s
privacy and civil liberties board and federal privacy officers
to review how information is shared and used, Rogers and
Ruppersberger said.

For more, click here.

Interviews

IP Attorney Says Congress Won’t Change Copyright Laws

Joshua Rosenkranz, head of the Supreme Court and Appellate
Litigation practice at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, spoke
with Bloomberg Law about obtaining a landmark copyright victory
in the U.S. Supreme Court. The court ruled on March 19, 2013,
that textbooks and other goods made abroad can be resold in the
U.S. without violating American copyright law, bolstering the
multibillion-dollar “gray market.”

Rosenkranz, discusses the implications of the court’s
decision for copyright holders, publishers and manufacturers.

The case is Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, 11-697.

To listen to the interview, click here.

Copyright Professor Discusses Tiffany’s Lawsuit Over Rings

Tyler Ochoa, a professor of copyright law at the Santa
Clara University School of Law, discussed on Bloomberg Radio
Tiffany & Co.’s suit against Costco Wholesale Corp. for
allegedly selling diamond engagement rings and falsely claiming
they were made by Tiffany. The suit was filed Feb. 14.

The case is Tiffany & Co. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 1:13-cv-01041, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
(Manhattan).